BHUNESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision has been preferred Under Sections 435 and 439 of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') by Bhuneshwar Singh and 15 others, for quashing the order dated 20-2-68, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jehanal ad, who had taken cognizance against the petitioners Under Sections 147,148,149, 323, 324 and 837 of the Indian Penal Code and transferred the case to the Court of shri M. Q. Hoda, Munsif Magistrate, first class, for disposal.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points involved in this application it will be necessary to state briefly the facts of the case. There was one Sheo Satan Singh who had four sons, namely, Euer Singh, Bisal Singh, Harihar Singh and Shital Singh. Bisal died leaving behind Sanjoga Kuer as his widow and Shital died leaving behind Bajrani Kuer as his widow. Harihar had one son, namely, Bam. kishore. After the death of Kuer, Bisal, Harihar and Shital, the property of the joint family devolved on Bam Kishore. According to Gupteshwar Singh, opposite party No, 2, Ramkishore executed a deed of gift in favour of Kam Singh and Chhotan who were minors. Therefore, their mother Bindeahwari Devi executed a Bale-deed dated 3-1-67 in favour of opposite party No. 2 regarding land and a house contained under plot no, 636/ 1205 situated in village Rajkharaa, police station Arwal, District Gaya.

(3.) On the other hand, the case of the petitioners is that the said plot and the house were purchased by petitioner No. 1 from Bajrani Devi widow of Shital on 1-2-66 by a registered sale deed and after the purchase the petitioner No. 1 is in possession of the disputed property. Therefore, a dispute arose between the parties for the said property. Opposite party No. 2 lodged a first information report on 10-1-67 before Arwal Polioe which was registered as case No. 4/1/67. Whereas petitioner No. 1 lodged saneha on 8-1 67, before the Sub-Inspector, Arwal Police, as the opposite party No. 2 threatened the petitioner No. 1 to dispossess him from the eaid property. According to the petitioners, the Sub-Inspector of Police visited the spot on 8.1-67 and deputed a constable to maintain peace. Their further case is that on 10.1.67 the opposite party No. 2 along with others, came armed with lathi, bhala etc and committed an offence Under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 337 ot the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 also lodged a first information report on 10-1-67 which was registered as Arwal Police Case No. 3/1/67. The police submitted charge.aheet in P, S Case No. 3 which was instituted by petitioner No. 1. after which cognizance was taken and the same is pending for trial before the Munsif Magistrate, Jehanabad. Whereas in P. S. Case No. 4, which was instituted at ths instance of opposite party No. 2, the police submitted final report. Against that opposite party No. 2 filed protest petition on 25.2-67 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who took cognizance on 20.2-68 against the petitioners and transferred the case to the Munsif Magistrate for disposal by the impugned order. Hence this revision.